Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Canadian Navy bolsters Arctic defence capability in the face of Russian aggression
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 11. 2022
- Russia's aggression on the world stage has renewed concern about the state of Canada's Arctic defences.
Melting sea ice and glaciers have revealed a vast network of uncharted waters, giving Russian troops easier access to North America in a potential invasion.
With pressure mounting to defend Canada’s far north, Jeff Semple travels onboard a Canadian Navy icebreaker to learn what's being done to protect northern waters.
For more info, please go to globalnews.ca/...
Subscribe to Global News Channel HERE: bit.ly/20fcXDc
Like Global News on Facebook HERE: bit.ly/255GMJQ
Follow Global News on Twitter HERE: bit.ly/1Toz8mt
Follow Global News on Instagram HERE: bit.ly/2QZaZIB
#GlobalNews #canada
Wow they got A gun on that ship.... I'm sure the Russians are impressed and threatened
As dysfunctional as the Russian army is, they would still be able to beat Canada in a theoretical war without NATO or the US. But that’s just fantasy. But I bet the Russian army won’t even flinch to a Canadian ship.
What Russians?
Some day the war in Ukraine will end. Putins Russia will not be good neighbors. Is there any other way to look at it??
How do you increase your Naval capability when all of your combat vessels are either outdated or not capable for actual combat......
But we are buying back guns and handguns to make their possible attack on Canada Easier.. Trudeau should be building defences up North, but he gave a way all our money! Duh..
12 inch thick hull would be great.
You stop wasting money like the Liberals have when they received the reins in relatively good shape. You stop throwing money at other countries and you stop overly stifling industry because of carbon. Canadian government needs to grow up and get serious about OUR sovereignty.
Canada once had a very respectable navy and steadily increased it's capabilities during WWII. Since then, dozens of ship yards have closed and their waterfront properties have been replaced with condos.
That right? How so?
Apparently we "send a message". I think maybe an unarmed naval vessel probably doesn't send the message we want to send.
Don't forget it's also very slow and can't handle more than Slush.
No! Your wrong, it has A gun on it.
Multiple machine guns on it
Exactly. Only gun, no anti-aircraft defense and no anti-submarine capability. We may as well use tug boats.
I think it operates together with the new Type 26 right?
As a Canadian I'm embarrassed our Navy is so weak. These ships are unarmed. Hopefully the Russians don't sink this POS.
The Russians lost their flagship to Ukraine...a country without a navy. Most of Russias fleet is mostly Coldwar junk.
They’re not unarmed bro, they’re equipped with 2 50 cals and a 25mm chain gun. Not a lot but at least it something
@@AveTrainOnDaTrack Are you aware of how much firepower a g-wagon alone carried?
Our opposites, Russian patrol vessels, sport a 100mm auto cannon. Fires the same shell they used late WW2, against Panzers & Tiger tanks. That's velocity. That's long range at sea. Now. Maybe we don't need exactly that? But explain why our AOPs don't even have a single SINBAD anti air missile launcher???
Somewhere, in the middle, is an intelligent self defence suite. Circa RCN 2023-24. The taxpayers aren't impressed presently. This relatively big,wide vessel. Only one varmint cannon??
What a JOKE😂😂😂😂
I am Canadian and even i find the title hilarious.
Did you serve?
Prospective. Four 25 mil.pop guns are hardly a deterrant. So don't pretend it is with this deceptive title. Has zero to do with military career. Has everything to do with class A expenditures that live in grey vessel targets. Continental defence, 243,000 kms of patrol.
Basic math does not compute.
For this arctic patrol vessel survivability under aerial UAV attack 100 miles off Thule, it should have at least a 20mm Phalanx CIWS augmenting it's current armaments.
Honestly I just find it silly that the ship has essentially no weapons. What are we going to do, use harsh language? I mean come on. our country is so afraid of weapons that even our bloody warships dont have any.
Looks like a joke. Protection against 1m of ice does not give an ability to patrol arctic waters. Just for quick trips in the summer time.
It can break 11 to 12 inches continuously!! Frigates are useless in ice conditions. Old or new, they cannot do much buy die.
That is why it has other icebreakers that can do that.
Please give our troops the ability to defend themselves ❗️
Run for your lives , there's a machine gun on that boat, I guess Russia will have some target practice on the way in!
Regardless of Canada’s “peaceful” nature in regards to participation of wars, which in a way I do agree with as a sense that Canada could fill in the cracks in a support sense to the US and since our soldiers are some of the most highly skilled in the world we could conduct many special forces missions as well. I also think we not only should but NEED to create one of the most formidable and most highly advanced naval forces the world has ever seen (not necessarily even in numbers but in strategical advantage and state of the art technology) to protect our arctic. Not many Canadians think about just how important our arctic region is to not only our country but ALL of North America. It is our duty and responsibility to protect that land just as much or more than our main land. IT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE THE LACK OF EFFORT OUR GOV HAS PUT INTO PROTECTING THAT.
Well said!
I did notice and continue to notice the lack of armament on the Harry DeWolff, and its sister ships. Are they ice breakers or Naval Ships? How exactly is an Icebreaker a deterrent against Russia, or China, or N Korea if they have no stinger? We Canadians are so polite maybe we will put up our hand and tell the intruder to stop and everything will be fine? Yes our Government has allowed our CAF to erode to the point where we are in dire need to upgrade.
Canada must do a refit on these ships as soon as possible. Upgrade to a 57mm main gun, air to air and sea missiles. These AOPS need to be capable to defend themselves. Who builds warships without defensive capabilities???
They are not warships, they are icebreakers. As for arming them it would likely be cheaper just to build new ships as neither their decks or sensors would support much in the way of armament.
It is a patrol vessel.
Drones would be better and cheaper for arctic defense
@@bryandoehler8962 Remember what I said in a few years from now when they go in for refit. They will get the upgrades. Much smaller ships can carry the weapons I mentioned. SEARAM for one.
@@marklelonde6684 I did not say it was impossible only that it would be very expensive to do. The decks would need to be reinforced and additional sensors installed. All that mass up top means that the amount of ballast has to be increased to maintain stability. The increased displacement means that you either have to upgrade the engine or accept a lower top speed and you're going to have an increased draft..
“Changing political landscape” - you mean, nuclear war and us unable to defend ourselves?
Yeah, it's too bad we never designed or built an interceptor/bomber, to cover northern defence....oh right we did and they turfed it...RIP CF-105.
@@Protege2001 RIP Avro Arrow
Rest easy. If there’s a nuclear war, entire world dies. Personally will get instantly vaporized which I think might be better than starvation/poison/radiation exposure. Idk
@@dackbowland1876 I think that tactical nukes will be used any day now. I don’t think there’s any avoiding it at this point.
@@davek4547 I know. Tactical nukes in Ukraine will start all out global nuclear war.
I’m pretty sure that’s why the Russians pulled out of that one major city recently that starts with a K, can’t remember. They will let Ukraine build up forces, supplies and weaponry and then level it and basically end all life on earth.
Hard to accept the fact that we live in a world with more than one nuclear terrorist countries.
Armed with a pea shooter lol.
Russia is half a century ahead in regards to arctic warfare tech. As a Canadian it saddens me how much our governments have failed to keep a well equipped military. The arctic is already Russias.
Yeah but we might have a New polar ice-breaker soon... Dont know when but its supposed to be soon.
Well I mean, can you really blame your government somewhat? Literally the world's largest Navy is sitting right below you belonging to one of your closest allies. It allows the government to spend most of the tax money on things like the Universal Healthcare system and public education. Both of which are among the best in the world, well actually, only recently has Canada's healthcare system kind of fell off a cliff and you guys fell into U.S levels as it pertains to healthcare. With that being said, in theory that's why your government has always skimped on the military spending. With an alliance and close proximity with the U.S, you don't have to spend anything. Really, Canada could just disband the military and ya'll would be fine. Now there is a sovereignty debate there however I think personally that this paranoia over lack of sovereignty because Canada has become reliant on the U.S is largely overblown.
And another thing you have to keep in mind when it comes to Canada. Unlike the United States. Much of Canada's population lives inland, and the Royal Canadian Army, while small, is very very capable at what they do. In fact, individually, Canadian soldiers are better trained than American soldiers.
All in all though, while there was a lot of things I missed. Generally the state of Canada's Navy here can really boil down to priorities of the government. If you ever get upset at your government for a pathetic looking Navy or Air Force, just remember that you have a very impressive Army to compensate.
@@taiwandxt6493This is very untrue. The United States would be busy getting ready and defending themselves. You would see Canadian civilians fighting.
@@SGTSWABBY Canadians are not fighters they a are runners for decades immigration is made up from people running from somewhere else for a better life, not sticking it out and making it better. Everyone with a dual passport would be gone the moment a foreign army touches Canadian territory.
the Canadian Army has no Royal designation but partially correct that smaller Army is very capable. The new CSC ships will be much more capable than most realize and at between 7400 and 9200 tons are quite large and twice the size of the current frigates. The RCAF has always been very capable with the a/c available. We are simply held back numbers wise by the size of the tax base and heavily reduced industrial capacity. ( largely a NAFTA gift )@@taiwandxt6493
QUIVER IN FEAR AT THE SIGHT OF OUR 1 GUN VESSEL!!!
Hahahaha. What is Canada's navy going to do against Russia's firepower and lack of woke. Might as well send trudy in a cossack outfit to do a dance for them. Hahahah.
These are not ice-breakers; they may sound suitable for government propaganda, but these are not what Canada needed to protect its Arctic Ocean. Instead, these ships are Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) only capable of summer/autumn operation in medium first-year ice (about 1 meter thick). Canada needed PC1, ideally, or PC-2, at best (ships capable of year-round operation in all polar waters) with actual combat capability, not PC-6s with barely a weapon capability onboard.
Don't believe all the bad press. They are ice strengthened up to PC-4, and are the same size and tonnage as Russia's brand new Kabir armed APOS class. They are twice the size and twice as powerful as the 3 new medium icebreakers the Canadian Coast Guard just received. So yes they are ice breakers. I think they even have bubblers but I may be wrong. No one really operates year round in the arctic even the Russian passage has a shipping season window. Plus they are now building two Polar Class 8 icebreakers which Davie will probably build since Seaspan has been so slow with the two JSS
Heard Russia kept up there nuclear powered purpose built ice breakers like a half dozen full bore ice smashers, trudope on the other hand kills the f35 and oks about 15 ships to build, not sure any one of them is qualified for that high arctic
@@ferrallderrall6588 We were going to build a nuke powered icebreaker but the liberals cancelled it.
@@twocansams6335 right I'm not surprised, I am surprised they got anything built at all before the libs scratched em.might as well say we give up on the far north when giving up on nuclear ice breakers that I'm sure our fine men and women could have put to good use.thanks for the reply
Russia has a fleet of over 40 icebreakers operating in the Arctic Ocean, which are nuclear powered, diesel-electric and diesel. Russia has 18 military bases along their north Arctic shores and several have submarine harbours.
Arctic defence capability? There must be some clever reason why this ship is armed only with a couple of pea shooters. Consider this Canadian embarrassed.
The navy is protected by Bob Rae's mouth in New York.
Canada needs to put more money into its navy
That will only happen when Trudeau is gone! He has no interest.
Not only navy, but also EVERYTHING...
@@TofuBoi_ You're right! Even to into it's population.🤑
Navy in particular, Canada has the longest coastline in the world, the navy should represent that.
Politicians won't because it doesn't get votes, the US cares about their military, Canadians don't until they need them in covid 19 or floods and fires!
Some countries have fishing fleets that are more impressive than our navy.
There are US fishing trawlers in Alaskan waters that are more heavily armed than these boats . Geez why even bother?. Go big or go home - they're doing a disservice to the term ' Naval Vessel '.
IF U THINK fighting Ukraine was hard - try messing with pissed off Polar Bears ;)
That's hilarious!hopefully these"new fleet of icebreakers" won't break down which seems to be the norm with the Canadian navy.what has happened to the armed forces???????
The subs break down. Spend some time researching what happens when you compress a vessel and the decompress it multiple times.
If you do not have an engineering degree or have served... your opinion is 🐂💩
these ships are 6,000 tons and could be seriously armed if needed , the current frigates ( quite capable ) are only 4300 tons . These are not small vessels and more capable than politically described
All ready broken down. They used lead in the fittings so lead is in the drinking water, making it undrinkable. The diesel electric engines are having issues, and need fixing on the first few ships. The bow thrusters on one of them came broken on delivery. And the big bulbous front meant to keep the sailors out of the weather, floods to the point it's dangerous to be in there. Unarmed, and unreliable. These are not a going to be a big recruitment driver for the Navy.
And to think our Navy was going to send our new "Ice breakers" to the horn of Africa to act as anti piracy. If they aren't acting to secure our northern waters then what did we build these unarmed coffins for? They had to cancel that deployment because they literally don't have sailors to sail these new ships.
We have to wait for Poilivere to become PM, like Harper he will fix what needs fixing , he is a number's guy and a very smart one ,so vote BLUE folks or we are doomed...
He won't spend the money either, because Canadians won't vote for increased military spending, the Americans love their military, Canadians don't give a dam
really! harper cancelled the f35's and ordered the AOPS shown here , bought 80 leo's when 200 were needed and did not order the CSC's as was planned in 2007. The new neocons are unlikely to spend anything on defense . That has been the history unfortunately . Much as I wish it were different since the 50's conservative governments have done little to nothing about defense needs. Hell Mulroney even sold off our Chinooks to the Danes or Norwegians and they had to be repurchased later. I wish that was just a little possible.
unless seriously threatened Canadians have always been the same but react very differently if required@@richardbanks6025
"Bolstered Arctic defence!" Are you kidding? That's a fishing trawler not a naval vessel.
Late to the dance despite years and years of warnings.
Can''t believe they are sending them up north already without air detachments onboard. There is more than enough Cyclones to go around now. Hell they can even dig up a Griffin or two or borrow a CCG 407 aircrew
Should have kept the F 104s.
What would cyclone do? These things are useless anyways.
wrong planet !@@brianmoncion6723
That ship should have missile defense
So you build a almost 7000 ton vessel, a military vessel but it has almost no military capability because you think your presence will be good enough seriously
*sips tea* the design choice isn’t too bad . . . Considering how our Kingston coastal defence ships only had - what two machine guns? Until recently - so why is this one so so surprising?
I understand the AOPS were designed to be Modular and allow the Retrofit of Real Weapons like Missiles!
I would strongly suggest that at least 1 or 2 of these Vessels be Armed to the Teeth.
Just in case "Just having a Presence there" isn't effective.
She’s so cute and courageous 🥰
How the hell you defend the ship with that tiny gun?!😅 You expect the enemy to die laughing!!!
Arr arr arr, I'd be more concerned about China claiming the artic territory just as it has claimed Taiwan, islands in the Phillippines, and the Antartic; why did you think china was in such as rush to get to the far side and pole of the Moon?
We don't stand a chance.
Canada needs a couple of arctic bases, and has needed them for decades. Ones that can have a runway to bring cargo/troops, or supplies. A port that can be operated at least part of the year, or longer with icebreaking help.
This is hillarious. Canada has allowed Russian ships and submarines to patrol in our waters for years.
russian ships patrolling our waters? maybe subs transiting under ice possibly......what data are you looking at?
@@MrMelster It used to be on the news all the time a decade ago. I don't really watch the news anymore, I'm sure I could find some old clips if I looked hard enough.
as has the US but as I remember it was often a Canadian maritime patrol a/c that told the Americans the Soviets were there. funny how that worked
What about forward-looking sonar....it's used - on fishing vessels to find fish balls in the Pacific Ocean
Canadian Tire is sold out of those...
Canada needs to put at least 2% GDP into our military. I don't think they are. We're pathetic when it comes to military strength. It's unfortunate but in light of Russian , China, NKorean aggression we need to step up
maybe the hypocritical mega-corporations and billionaires can pay their fare share of taxes so that we can afford to put at least 2% into our military....
No votes by Canadians for military spending, so politicians don't give it any thought
Who decided to put the anchors so low to the waterline? Ican imagine they are a pain in rough weather.
A Commander at 20 years of service. Wow, she spent no less than 5 years in each of the ranks lower than Commander. I wonder what made her spend that much time in one rank before moving to the next
Beautiful ship. Thank you for your service, God 🙌 bless
Canada bolstering anything is a bad joke FJT
sorry origional purchase of 4 was by Harper not Trudeau the later government increased to 6 and added two more to the coast guard The naval versions can add a weapons platform when needed and at 6,000 tons are far larger than the current frigates , the foc'sle makes them look smaller
Harpers ships oops !
Too bad these ships are useless against anything other than a Polar Bear :(
Joke. Slush breaker with a mounted single bb gun. What a huge waste of money.
To the RCN crews operating these ships, my respect. To the Liberal government’s lack of respect for them and their ‘window dressing diplomacy’, my contempt.
What melting sea ice and glaciers?
Global warming and the fact that we're curently in a melting ice age.
wow you really don't pay attention do you !?
She's a ship crewed by the RCN, but it's still not a warship. We paid a lot of money for a ship that's nothing more than a oversized patrol boat. We should give them over to the Coast Guard.
Russian oligarchs have more firepower on their luxury yachts then this.
One of the big reasons for the AOPS being lightly armed is that building half a dozen AOPS is a practice project to bolster Irving shipyards shipbuilding expertise before they start producing the more complicated Type 26 CSC.
two are coast guard , unfortunately the government that ordered them didn't share your concerns. Hint Not the liberals !
how about investing in satellites to monitor the area. besides great move towards protecting Canadian territory.
Glorified tug boats. Not fit for ice. Billion$ wasted.
Bolster. Ha. Folks if you are going to sport a tiny cannon at least have the decency to place it into a triple or quad gun turret. No other arctic nation (Denmark, Norway, Russia, USA) builds a northern patrol vessel without some kind of SAM launcher. In these days of UAVs that's a real threat far from home. All alone. Denmark's Greenland patrol vessel fleet is so heavily armed, some of thier three gun turret Huetfeld vessels pass as light cruisers. That's why our crime minister was sucking up to Euro NATO three months ago!
It is a fishing boat armed with prayers.
How about focusing on domestic issues and stop pointing fingers.
This is a good start but we need more ships, every year keep adding to protect our coastline. New weaponry and even new satellites are desperately needed.
In my lifetime I’d love to see an aircraft carrier…
We simply conserve making these ships in either Halifax area and employ Canadians to build Canadian ships. Let’s go Canada you can do it
no votes for politicians who want to spend on Military, Canadians don't care about our Military
Peoples fail to understand the mission of this ship. Its a patroller you dont need a big bug to be effective at anti illegal fishing mission, anti piracy or search and rescue. They were not meant to counter Russia or China in artic but it gives us a presence. The only presence we had was the Louis Saint Lautent ice breaker thats a polar class 4 level ice breaker. We will eventually get a replacement for our submarine fleet along with 2 new polar class 2 ice breakers. With all that, including the Harry Dewolf and River class destroyers, yes we will be deterrent. We are also spending billions on new anti submarines aicraft and planing to aquire AWACS aicraft too. We are also completing a deep water naval station in Nunavut as of 2024.
So please, stop thinking defending Canadian north relies 100% on HarryDewolf ships. In fact, even the replacement for Kingston class will be much more armed, check the Vigilance Offshore Patrol Vessel.
I don’t care if my taxes go up, Canada needs to spend more on our navy and military as a whole!
No votes from the public for this, that's why Feds will never spend what is needed
unfortunately you are in the minority . You should remember that very often governments play to the tax base rather than necessity. The last time was in 2010 when the then sitting government cancelled a major purchase as an election loomed and did not wish to appear to spend.
These are not warships, they deliver picnic baskets to the local seals and polar bears, what a joke our military has become!
Let me say the key word here. Oil. The other key word is minerals. Arctic Patrol Ships are they too late (they should of been built 20 years ago). Also there will be a need to navigate during ice season (winter). Hovercraft??
1 gun eh
It's a good start but really we have to up our game even more. We Canadians need to spend at least 2% on our military, not only to honour our allies but to actually protect our own turf as well.
Any attack on a Canadian patrol vessel invokes article 5 I would bet so a 'presence' is sufficient on the Russia defence front likely. As for the main gun, its plenty for maritime law enforcement and having regular interactions bringing supplies, enforcement or emergency responses for Arctic settlements is a good thing. All things considered, it seems to like the right way to go. New integrated frigates and supply ships are coming online soon. The subs are pretty capable non-nuclear subs from what I understand. Canada definitiely contributes to global security for a country with 40 million people or so.
We certainly contribute but I feel we could be doing a little more. We currently spend less on the military than the much smaller Australia despite operating in 3 different oceans. Article 5's protection will likely stop outright attacks but it won't be triggered by more passive forms of harassment. With the amount of trade that will be passing through the arctic soon, if we want to stop civilian ships from being stopped, detained, and harassed arbitrarily, I think we should have more ships.
It’s pathetic the size of coastline and territorial waters Canada has compared to its pitifully small navy.
In 2022, the LEGO brand was valued at approximately 11.8 billion U.S. dollars. In comparison, the brand's valuation was about 5.4 billion U.S. dollars
How can a Canadian Icebreaker armed with a pop gun defend its territory in the arctic??? It needs better cannons and missiles. Dontcha think.
it is only intended to be a presence and increase visibility , but if the threat becomes more they can be easily upgraded.
@@alpearson9158 So funny was that reply. Instead of laughing, I only farted. But let's get real. The vessel cannot be upgraded, if it's at the bottom of the ocean.
* You do not see ant OPV's in the Russian Navy lightly armed, do ya? No. They all are heavily armed fitted right the 1st time for war.
* If I was a Crazy Ivan, I would sink that pathetic sorry excuse of a combat vessel out of sheer anger over the insult that it represents. 🤨
Our navy has become the coast guard waste of money building a navy ship that can’t even fire a missle!
If our icebreaker isn’t armed, I have a feeling it’s not sending the kind of message Russia hears very loudly.
With over 40 icebreakers operating in the Arctic Ocean and 19 military bases along their Arctic coastline, several with submarine harbours, it is Russia that is sending a message.
unfortunately some do not understand those Russian vessels are of USSR vintage and some are 50 years old . @@chrisgraham2904
note of those 40 32 are far older than you can comprehend@@chrisgraham2904
What a joke, Russia would sink the entire fleet the first day..
What was the sash the Commander was wearing at the beginning of the clip.
I believe It was the neck strap of her binoculars. I'm not sure of the cultural or military significance .
Canada is pretty weak right now. Just don't piss them off.
We'd get destroyed if they decided to do something our military might is a joke!!! It's sad! We need to modernize and equip better tech and equipment for our soldiers!
Isn't that great? Canada is going to protect us.
Well this didn't age well after what happened to Max Bernays
Ya Trudeau babbling about climate change and we send big diesel ice breaker to go up there and explore.aaaa yes diesel is here to stay folks in my life time anyways..
Maybe the hash tag. "We the north" should be considered.
And keep in mind that the colossal expenditure for the six Arctic class patrol vessels, came in at about C$5 billion.
There have already been serious 'issues' with internal tanks and piping, this within one year if operation, on the first vessel that came out - "Harry Dewolf".
A joke and disgrace - both of taxpayers' dollars and poor planning in choosing a vessel as such, rather than vessels more robust (that could operate year-round in the Arctic) and certainly be better armed.
Ok boys, buy a bigger gun. No missiles, no anti shipping, pathetic. And I helped designed the MCDVs. Upgrade the peashooter
As a US sub shadows the ship, as a Russian sub shadows the US sub?
funny they are both terrified of Swedish , German and Canadian h/k diesel boats as they cannot hear them
I would arm Marget Brook with two ready torpedos on the Cyclone, two torpeado side tubes ten tomohawk missiles, a 220mm cannon, a 45mm cannon, as well air defense system gun and shapnel cannons. War is coming!
Get your facts straight girls. NATO started the conflict in Ukraine, with the 2008 statement that Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO. This is when the train left the station.
hmm free independant nations asking to join Nato to escape the current Russian schemes . No surprise to anyone capable of a thought process
you missed the point any democratic nation that goes to Nato and asks to join in Europe will likely get the opportunity. It should be obvious ( even to an Ivan ) that aggression like Russia's will be met with worldwide condemnation and support as in the case of the Ukraine. Russia has become a fascist state SO SAD.!
FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
get a couple of high powerful nukes too the rest of the world have them.
Tf is across her chest?!?
They can ram the enemy if the are fast enough.
Why are we fighting over who control the sea
1:53
LOL the tittle, what arctic defense? the AOPS are just there to monitor commercial, assert Canada's claim on the north west passage and catch drug smugglers down south once and a while.
They are not combat ships.
ocean and ice mountain Global atalantic ocean
Bolsters what?
Navy should build another 10 Dewolfe vessels.
Why? What's the value of an unarmed naval vessel?
@@minuteman4199 It’s not unarmed it is equipped with 2 50 cals and a 25mm chain gun on the bow. Yea sure that’s not very impressive but its definitely not unarmed
@@AveTrainOnDaTrackthat’s pathetic armament
@@zachhoward9099 I agree with you, incredibly pathetic, no ASW capabilities besides the Cyclone which cant even fit in the hangar btw or land on deck(no bear-trap). No anti-ship missiles defences or counter-measures. Compared to the ships Russia is building and the subs under the ice its pretty much useless
🇨🇦
If Russia or China wanted too they good just land in the artic and set up a base and all we could do is watch, we’d have to ask for help again because Trudeau thinks it’s okay we rely on other countries to protect us.
Canada needs to increase its defense spending to 50 billion us dollars like Australia.
The USA needs to station Troops and equipment in the Canadian Artic. Together we will defend north America.
Why would the Americans spend when Canada doesn't
@@richardbanks6025 Canada should spend a litt6le more.
Our political masters in the federal government deems that it is more worthy to spend money on Aboriginals, then on defence. Australia knows that China is expanding into the South China Sea and beyond into the Pacific.
You have a candy store and invite a friend to help out, he eats all your candy.....
lol bolsters arctic defense with one 50 cal
J’espère quil vont ce décider à cartographier cette endroit parce que les russe eux lont deja fait dans notre dos
Who's changing it?
Canada is a potato in the Geography political games
Message!? How that working our!? The recent CP140 buzz by China? Or our Sikorsky helo buzz. Take some of OUR $$ and but some gear for our guys.
PLZ do more stories on modernization of CA armed forces thanx.
Propaganda video. These are not warships.
Thank god for global warming
Our navy mid